Perreault's a really interesting player. I wish we could have seen what he would have looked like as the Malkin to someone else's Crosby, or on the top line of a dynasty team, because all of those things make him sound like the ideal second best player on a great team.
Scotty Bowman's Top 100 Canadian Players
- Thread starter overpass
- Start date
Perreault's a really interesting player. I wish we could have seen what he would have looked like as the Malkin to someone else's Crosby, or on the top line of a dynasty team, because all of those things make him sound like the ideal second best player on a great team.
The Panther
Registered User
Thanks for bumping this classic thread.
The two most bizarre placements/selections on anyone's list, for me, are:
1) John Garrett had Dave Babych (!) in his top-80 Canadian players of all time.
2) Scotty Bowman had Dave Keon in 12th place.
Garrett is nutty anyway, but this list...! Babych was one of the worst defensive players I've ever seen. He consistently had the worst even-strength results of anybody on his teams, and his offence, while above average, wasn't nearly enough to compensate. Was he really any better than, say, Tom Kurvers? I'd rank him well below Reijo Ruotsalainen.
Then, Bowman's list. I mean, sure, maybe there's a place for Keon in the top-100 and he was a great two-way player with great longevity, but c'mon... two 2nd-team All Star selections and one Conn Smythe (3 goals in 12 games) does not make you top-12 all time. Just crazy.
The two most bizarre placements/selections on anyone's list, for me, are:
1) John Garrett had Dave Babych (!) in his top-80 Canadian players of all time.
2) Scotty Bowman had Dave Keon in 12th place.
Garrett is nutty anyway, but this list...! Babych was one of the worst defensive players I've ever seen. He consistently had the worst even-strength results of anybody on his teams, and his offence, while above average, wasn't nearly enough to compensate. Was he really any better than, say, Tom Kurvers? I'd rank him well below Reijo Ruotsalainen.
Then, Bowman's list. I mean, sure, maybe there's a place for Keon in the top-100 and he was a great two-way player with great longevity, but c'mon... two 2nd-team All Star selections and one Conn Smythe (3 goals in 12 games) does not make you top-12 all time. Just crazy.
The Macho King
Back* to Back** World Champion
- Jun 22, 2011
- 49,156
- 30,149
Its interesting because I wonder how much some amorphous "coachability" factors into how he views players.
JackSlater
Registered User
- Apr 27, 2010
- 19,675
- 15,265
I read Bowman's book the Christmas after it came out, enjoyed it. The player comments were interesting even though he was very clearly being diplomatic. The team comparison seemed like a gimmick to sell books, just sort of tacked on at the end and a nice hook to advertise the book. With Bowman's list, while it is odd I am not in a rush to dismiss it. This is by most accounts the best coach in hockey history, a guy with access to hockey at the top levels since the 1940s and consistently since, making a list of players while still very sharp. By my quick count he even coached 41ish of those players he listed in competitive games, even if only for a short time internationally. It's not nothing.
The Panther
Registered User
Keep in mind it's not Bowman's book, it's Dryden's. Most of the book is Dryden waxing on on about Bowman, from Dryden's perspective. The fascinating parts were certainly when Bowman got talking (through Dryden) about something and was quoted in detail. But for me there weren't enough of those parts. Dryden admitted it was very hard to get Bowman to agree to the book and then hard to get Bowman to talk about anything after he'd agreed to it, so it was Dryden who came up with that gimmicky "historical teams comparison" thing. It was the only way he could get Bowman to talk about these things.
JackSlater
Registered User
- Apr 27, 2010
- 19,675
- 15,265
Yeah have to agree with that. I really enjoyed Bowman talking about Pollock in particular, and the player stuff was interesting. I remember being interested in his descriptions of Plante too, which were mildly negative at least in terms of his mentality vs Hall's. The team comparisons were basically a paragraph or two and then he goes with the better roster, which is probably accurate.
NigerianNightmare
Lürssen > Feadship
67 others
Registered User
Well it's a valid point. Amongst a bunch of strange opinions.
I'd like to hear his reasoning on ranking Bourque so low.
notDatsyuk
Registered User
- Jul 20, 2018
- 11,690
- 9,800
Up until Messier (?), the only player to win more than four Cups without ever playing for Montreal (four with Detroit as a defenceman, and four with Toronto as a forward).
There is a clear, and I guess understandable, bias towards Montreal players, and to players of his own era.
Just look at the goalies: Jacques Plante, Terry Sawchuk, Glenn Hall, Patrick Roy, Martin Brodeur, Ken Dryden, Bernard Parent, Grant Fuhr, Billy Smith, Tony Esposito, Johnny Bower, Gump Worsley, and Ed Belfour. How many of them didn't play either for Montreal or while he was coaching them?
I don't agree with all the names, or their order on the list, but it's a good list.
NigerianNightmare
Lürssen > Feadship
Michael Farkas
Celebrate 68
Bowman knows things. But he also may not have sat and looked back and really thought about it...we don't know how seriously he took it...
If I thought back about all the players I coached and coached against in just the last decade, I might have some outlandish claims too...
If I thought back about all the players I coached and coached against in just the last decade, I might have some outlandish claims too...
You really need to go back and look at the first post then.
Gretzky is 5th
Dave Keon is 12th between Lafleur and Henri Richard, who is somehow ahead of a guy I think can get over rated in Moose, them Crosby and Bourque.
It's simply not a very good list at all and if in any top 100 Canadians of all time Bowman submitted that list it would be outright rejected and with good reason.
He probably didn't really take a serious look at the question being asked.
Sentinel
Registered User
My explanation for Bowman's list is that he ranked players for how GOOD they actually were vs. how GREAT their career achievements were. We all know sometimes these two do not correlate.
That still does not explain Gretzky at #5
That still does not explain Gretzky at #5
NigerianNightmare
Lürssen > Feadship
NigerianNightmare
Lürssen > Feadship
My explanation for Bowman's list is that he ranked players for how GOOD they actually were vs. how GREAT their career achievements were. We all know sometimes these two do not correlate.
That still does not explain Gretzky at #5
Exactly. Many thanks for this post.
Do you think Gretzky at No. 5 is too high?
jigglysquishy
Registered User
The only person to actually make an argument for Gretzky outside the top four is Canadiens1958. And he didn't really argue it either, or why Hull should be above him. He clearly had a strong preference for two way or defensive forwards, but it was probably his most controversial opinion.
Bowman throws Gretzky at 5 with no support or argument. So it's just kind of there.
What, 90% of this board had Gretzky top 2 and everyone but Canadiens1958 had him top 3?
Bowman throws Gretzky at 5 with no support or argument. So it's just kind of there.
What, 90% of this board had Gretzky top 2 and everyone but Canadiens1958 had him top 3?
Sentinel
Registered User
Gretzky is and should be undisputed #1. His achievements correlate with his hockey skills perfectly. Well, one hockey skill above all: his otherworldly IQ.
Hockey Outsider
Registered User
- Jan 16, 2005
- 9,575
- 16,133
That's right. During the HOH Top 100 project, these were Gretzky's voting results:
- 1st place - 23
- 2nd place - 3
- 3rd place - 4
- 7th place - 1
NigerianNightmare
Lürssen > Feadship
Obviously, Gretzky is considered as the greatest hockey player by millions.
Honestly, I rank Orr first because he played defence and at the same time managed to produce mind-blowing offensive stats and lead his team to the Stanley Cup. I guess I have a preference for defencemen who are overachievers, that's why I'd rank Fetisov in top 10 all-time and rank Lidstrom as the best Swedish player ever.
But my question is :
Why did Bowman rank Gretzky as the 5th best Canadian? There must be a serious reason for that
VanIslander
20 years of All-Time Drafts on HfBoards
Bowman identified Howe as the perfect player.
Gretzky didn't have the skating or strength. He had the head and hands in spades though.
Gretzky didn't have the skating or strength. He had the head and hands in spades though.
Michael Farkas
Celebrate 68
ImporterExporter
"You're a boring old man"
I've long had Orr #1 based on his quantifiable impact when he was on the ice vs when he wasn't. He revolutionized the game, the position and the reality is, had he not had the knee injuries, or better medical care at the time, his career resume, which is absolutely absurd for a guy who was basically shot by his mid 20's, would almost surely be easier to argue against Gretzky vs the pure numbers/awards crowd.
I would now, a few years later, rank Howe #2 and Gretzky/Mario 3 and 4 with the understanding that most people don't share the idea Gretzky isn't a bonafide 1 or 2.
I would now, a few years later, rank Howe #2 and Gretzky/Mario 3 and 4 with the understanding that most people don't share the idea Gretzky isn't a bonafide 1 or 2.
JackSlater
Registered User
- Apr 27, 2010
- 19,675
- 15,265
He hasn't explained it. However, it's interesting that he did and realistically no one alive is in a better position to compare Gretzky, Orr, Howe, Lemieux, and Richard.
Last edited:
Sentinel
Registered User
Gretzky had a number of flaws: his skating, his physicality, his two-way play. All the things that Bowman loved in Howe.
Gretzky made up for all those flaws in spades and oodles but I guess that wasn't good enough for Bowman.
And I don't rank Orr as high simply for his body of work. Gretzky has twice as many Cups and three times as many Hartsas Orr. He certainly was not beaten to the Hart by his own teammate... twice.
Last edited:
